| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 359/09 |
| Hearing date | 2 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2009 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | S Scott ; M Rush |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wiseman v Drinkwater |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed – Respondents argued dismissal justified given applicant’s behaviour and actions leading up to dismissal – Respondent argued applicant refused to return to work to attend pre-arranged meeting because was eating lunch – Applicant argued immediately drove to cowshed to attend meeting – Authority preferred respondent’s version of events – Respondent subsequently warned applicant about attitude and manner – Applicant attended end of year staff meeting two hours late following demands for attendance – While respondent away on holiday cows milked at irregular times – Applicant allegedly injured foot and could not work but failed to inform respondent – Respondent contacted applicant following day to obtain information about injury and to arrange meeting to discuss milking while respondent away – Applicant claimed did not inform respondents about injury because thought they were not home – Applicant failed to provide explanation about milking times – Respondent issued verbal warning – Applicant denied received warning – Found applicant should have understood respondent’s issues with her – Respondent informed applicant of late milking due to vet visit – Respondent claimed applicant angry and failed to return to work after break – Applicant failed to report for work on next rostered days following unanswered text to respondent – Disciplinary meeting held where applicant failed to explain absence from work and became very angry – Respondent inspected house occupied by applicant and found cat and dog urine everywhere – Found condition of house disgusting and filth and general degradation indefensible – Respondent failed to give 48 hours notice of inspection but applicant consented to inspection and was present throughout – Applicant’s employment terminated – Found termination letter long, incoherent and difficult to comprehend – Applicant argued dismissal unjustified as no formal procedure or warnings given – Found respondents failed to give notice of all allegations or likely consequences and did not give opportunity to obtain representation or explain conduct – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found 80 percent contributory conduct – Applicant entitled to reimbursement of lost wages for remainder of fixed term agreement – Found no evidence applicant suffered hurt or humiliation – No order for compensation – Found no entitlement to withheld wages and holiday pay for damage to property – Dairy farm worker |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,084.56 reduced to $1,416.91) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;Residential Tenancy Act 1986 |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever [1990] ERNZ 35 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 359_09.pdf [pdf 57 KB] |